Was he a sociopath?

Was he a sociopath?

Attached: bentham.jpg (536x728, 77K)

This dude would allow a massive alien species to rape and pillage the whole Earth for the greater good

Most are.
Hence why they never became theologians.

Capitalism makes sociopaths the kings of the world. It would make sense.

Someone post the meme with the utilitarian firing squads.

I believe Haidt put him in the "autism zone"
that said, he put Kant very near the autism zone, which i think fundamentally misunderstands the humanism and empathy that exists in his work

Could you expand on this, please?

Well let's see:

>Benjamin
>Thanatos

>Ben . . . Than (replace the 'n' now with an 'm', please)

That's a Franklin who could kill you. I think he could skin a cat and pulls it's eyeballs out and twist them. I would consider that man a psychotic freak.

>tfw mom puts you in the autism zone

Attached: 20190711_212029.jpg (2268x3763, 3.8M)

No but you can kill yourself

Kant seems pretty autistic to me, but I’d like to hear your defense since you’ve probably read him some.
I think it’s odd how people gravitate towards the stoics all the time, the guy above thinks theologians aren’t sociopaths, etc. really just curious.

What does "empathy" even mean in this context?

Not being a sperg

yikes

It's not Capitalism. Sociopaths are at all times, under any circumstance able to exploit the situation to their benefit without the constraints of conscience. And that is why they are the kings of this world and have always been.

is that haidt?

Yes, what I mean by the above is that capitalism rewards only the most sociopathic best.
The good king under monarchism was a craps shoot at best. So safest way out of these insane social systems is to have wide diffused rule of the people over their own affairs... etc.

Holy fuck based.

But it makes no sense here. Jeremy Bentham’s ideas on utility fueled progressive intellectual movements within the 19th century.

How does it not make sense?
Because he wasn’t a wealthy industrialist? Pardon. Let me try to explain my train of thought.
There is also a tendency in the sciences, including philosophy, to be cold and clinical. Bentham, as far as I have heard, promoted capitalism as a way to make the world better. Like the rest of them he was blind to the social/psychological impact of what was happening. But there were clearly people who saw the new systems thornier side. Owen for one

Attached: 34E830B0-6886-439C-948A-1419913A9DC4.jpg (1920x2428, 417K)

I’m saying that the development of Utilitarianism and the French Revolution inspired Karl Marx, St. Simon, and Fourier, among other socialists, to write their theories of an ideal, utilitarian society.

:3

No, he was just English

empathy is the state of being empathetic

Oh well, than consider me a sociopath. For I haven't been able to experience such a state in years.

From Calasso’s Unnameable Present

>“Is there such a thing as secular thought? Or is it a convenient figment? Or is it a ragbag of other thoughts? Disconcerting though it seems, one has to admit it really does exist. Its ingenuous and ruthless prophet was Bentham. His shrine is University College London, where his mummy is on display. And his last missionary was B. F. Skinner, founder of behaviorism, whom the scientific community accepted without objection for some while. The subject of Skinner’s experiments was the perfect Homo saecularis, who exists only as the sum of reinforced reactions. Skinner’s man, considered today as an incongruous remnant of the past, was a diligent experimental application of Locke’s tabula rasa. And Locke was the first gentleman to assume the role of Homo saecularis.”